It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Parents sue after filming priest having sex with teen daughter in basement

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by SupremeKnowledge

Agreed, very old joke..

Guy goes to get his eyes checked..

Doc says you are suffering from "catholic school disease"

"whats that" says the patient..

"You've ^%$#$% your pupils" says the doc..

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:04 AM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Well, i am a church basher of sorts, partly because of this kind of crap floating in a sea of other hypocritical crap.

But gee.....they certainly do bring a whole lot of pain down on themselves when this stuff goes on.

Personally, i think they deserve their pain, it's their victims pain i have sympathy for.

[edit on 28/8/2010 by spikey]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:19 AM
This case and those like it, are one of the reasons why I will NEVER accept a preist as a conduit for communication with my creator. Why accept the moral integrity of a flawed being? Because a broken system tells you to?
Of course, the article makes no mention of any non sexual relationship they may have, and in my opinion if there was a caring and wholesome element to thier union , then to my mind the preist ought to man up, quit the church and make an honest woman of her. I never agreed with the roman view of the preist hood in any case. They arent holy, they are men. One of the best things mankind ever learned how to do was love, and if , IF there is some genuine deep connection between the priest and this young woman, then it ought to be supported.
If however the relationship was purely sexual , and served no deeper purpose than to relieve the priests pent up tension, then of course he needs a kicking. I hear people bashing the young woman in this thread and I understand the ire people feel toward loose attitudes to sex in the young of today, however there is another element to this. If she was part of his flock, someone for whom the priest was responsible , someone whos soul was his to shepherd, then those of us outside the Catholic church have no business commenting on her morals. None outside that institution will ever know the power of command which a priest carries in that culture. There are so many social conventions which remain part of the Roman church , which you or I might find absolutely stoneage , but they are part of it none the less, and a great many of those have to do with basicaly doing as you are damned well told by your betters and ESPECIALY by the clergy.
I cant end this post before saying a word or two about the parents. Its easy to judge them,and call them hillbillies and pervs and money grubbers and so on, but as has been mentioned by other posters already, the Catholic Church has more legal clout than a baseball bat made out of compressed statute books. The only way to ensure that any resultant pregnancy is provided for properly , is to ensure that the church cannot wiggle out of its responsibility, since of course the priest and the church are considered parts of a whole , rather than seperate entities. The parents MIGHT be all sorts of moraly retarded, they may be the sickest individuals ever given life on earth, but unless we have evidence to suggest such, its a little crass to attack them, when the situation they are in is incredibly thorny, and similar situations down the ages have RUINED families. If that was your child, and the situation so potentialy destructive, I think many of us would be forced to do things we arent proud of to ensure the minimisation of the impact of an undesired pregnancy, especialy since abortion is not an option for a Catholic.
Without a fair understanding of the culture in which this incident took place its a little arrogant to throw insults around , and hair trigger your reactions all over the place. We havent a detailed enough picture of the scenario at this time to make a fair judgement on it.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:19 AM
Repost of my reply to the thread in the Conspiracies in Religion Forum:

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I just looked over the Pennsylvania age of consent laws (link) and it looks like the parents only have a case if the daughter agrees that she was forcibly compelled:

"Forcible compulsion." Compulsion by use of physical, intellectual, moral, emotional or psychological force, either express or implied. The term includes, but is not limited to, compulsion resulting in another person's death, whether the death occurred before, during or after sexual intercourse.
(from the above link)

Otherwise, the state's laws are on the priest's side:

§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault.

Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.
(same link)

So, in this case, statutory sexual assault is out unless this started prior to her 18th birthday.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the priest's actions here; I think they're rather despicable. I'm just saying that unless the girl says this started before she turned 18 or that it wasn't consensual, then legally speaking, there's no case, as near as I can tell.

I could be wrong, though. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on ATS.

Thanks for posting, and here's hoping for some accountability in the Catholic Church.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by TheAssociate]


posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by Snarf

Many teenage girls and boys get crushes...this a is a part of growing up.
To say that the girl seems easy, shows your own lack of morals.
The priest took advantage of the girls attraction to him..most teachers
would know how to handle this situation.

A mature man knows how to handle his emotions..not so easy a young
girl in the throws of young love.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Well, i am a church basher of sorts, partly because of this kind of crap floating in a sea of other hypocritical crap.

But gee.....they certainly do bring a whole lot of pain down on themselves when this stuff goes on.

Personally, i think they deserve their pain, it's their victims pain i have sympathy for.


Fair enough.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:49 AM
If I was the dad I would never be sure what happened in the basement because I wouldn't watch that tape. Gross on so many levels.

I keep saying it's not the church at fault it's the individuals, then I remember that the church protects these people. Knowing that they are going to be protected might make the Catholic Diocese an attractive prospect for a paedophile...

Obviously I understand that in this case the priest wasn't necessarily a paedo.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:22 AM
if you take out him beign a priest and stuff ... how is that a shocking thing?

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by reassor

If you take out him being a priest, then you are ignoring a pertinent factor in the case. Thats not the way things are done.
I mean its one thing being ignorant of the facts, its quite another ignoring them when they are presented !!

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by reassor
if you take out him beign a priest and stuff ...


What if aliens travelled back in time & shot his grandfather?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:35 AM
While it's quite odd that these parents were videotaping an 18 yr old daughter having sex in THEIR basement in THEIR home, IF this 'relationship' began while she was a minor, then there is legal issue. IF the sexual relationship began AFTER she turned 18, then legally there is little that can be done. They are both legal adults.

The diocese basically did what is required of them.

There is NO invasion of privacy filming the basement, since neither the priest nor the daughter OWN the home . . . the parents own that property, the daughter's name is most likely NOT on the deed. So there is nothing illegal in them set up a surveillance camera in THEIR home to monitor the goings-on of a high school teacher with their high school daughter.

Ironic that this priest was 'sent for treatment' and continued to have sexual relations with that young woman resulting in pregnancy. The treatment was obviously not working. And teaching abstinence instead of safe sex obviously did not work either.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by Nivcharah

The reason for the filming is likely to have been to prevent the priest dodging his responsibilities when the baby is born, as it is likely to be, given the religion of the family .

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:43 AM
I dont think the parents knew that their daughter was having sex before they even saw the video.....

Maybe the parents thought their basement looked weird because things kept getting moved around and maybe some tools were missing or a lock on the basement window was broken,
And when they asked their daughter about it she told them she didnt know...
So they put up a video camera thinking that someone is breaking into their house,
and then out of no where BOOM!!!
There's their daughter banging the priest

[edit on 28-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:54 AM
If I was that priest I would sue those parents. This videotape is nothing more than voyeurism at its worst... "oh hes a priest so lets get it on camera!" No crime committed here, except for the parents possibly. Nothing to see. If anything this is tabloid material. And frankly it`s taking attention away from the 13 year olds and younger who are the REAL targets in our day and time. No offense, but seriously.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by doctor j and inmate c5779
If I was that priest I would sue those parents. This videotape is nothing more than voyeurism at its worst...

I beg your pardon?! Yeah. Right. Because is it accepted that a priest (who takes a vow of celibacy) MIGHT have sex with someone in your home, especially your teenage daughter who attends the high school where he worked.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:15 AM
Reading further into the thread... Ha, if anyone thought this "priest" was something special to begin with... well we can`t save ewvery gullible fool in the world now can we? The parents got pwned by that priest and wow they musta been real careful ya know, to protect her and keep her away from guys they percieved as bad but yeah lets just trust this guy all the way because he seems good wearing that collar... the logic is laughable... They raised her and taught her so by that knowledge she defined her criteria for a mate!! There`s noone to feel sorry for. If they aren`t happy with the results of their parenting, well then the husband can put another "quarter" in his wife`s "coinslot" and they can have another try at the game of molding someone else`s life. I swear parents think that kids are just toys and that whenever they aren`t around to see what`s goin on, the kids just shut off and go into sleep mode. Nope, they are out learning without your supervision, maybe creating an account on a social networking site, one of the lesser known ones that has lax rules & less security. After that?. Who knows?.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

The reason for the filming is likely to have been to prevent the priest dodging his responsibilities when the baby is born, as it is likely to be, given the religion of the family .

A video is no proof of parenthood, only the act. DNA is the only proof.
The video?
Just plain sickness on the parents part.
Blackmail at best.
I'm not condoning what the priest did by any stretch - but - entrapment and blackmail was served up for that plate of the day.


posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

I really don't see the issue with this at all. The girl herself said it was none of her parents business, they said she was in High School when the relationship started, so what who cares. I started my relationship with my husband when I was in High School I was 17 he was 18, and in the military. I also dated men who were 25 when I was 17. Yes my parents knew and they didn't care. I really don't care and I don't think the guy should not be sued at all. The only thing that should happen is he shouldn't be a priest because as a priest he shouldn't be having sex, and that's it.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:33 AM
I was going to post only this first paragraph: The more I read about this the more I think about the video and it's purpose, or at least I question what I originally wrote about it. The video proves they had sex but not that he's the father. Even without the video wouldn't the parents been legally allowed to to get a paternity test on the priest? Are the parents going to show the video as evidence in court instead of showing a paternity test? I'm thinking out loud here a bit but feel like I'm missing something. They were suspicious, installed a camera, took it to the Diocese then filed a lawsuit. Yeah, never mind, I still see a frivolous lawsuit here.

Then I found some additional information from another source that's worthy to include and explains a lot more. Jay Abramowitch, charged that diocesan officials knew about the relationship but were “so concerned about their own reputation and/or financial interests, that they failed to protect (the teen) from Father Bonilla.”

Bonilla was named the chaplain of Central Catholic in 2008 and befriended the teen, then 17, at the beginning of her senior year. Bonilla “began to groom (the teen) for a sexual relationship,” the suit said, knowing that she suffered from mental health issues, was previously sexually abused by an adult man and was “susceptible to being manipulated.”

Her parents began to suspect a relationship and reported their concerns to administrators at Central Catholic, “but were told their suspicions were unfounded and that nothing could be done to separate (the teen) and Father Bonilla because he was her spiritual advisor and/or counsellor,” according to the suit. Bonilla also took steps to alienate the teen from her parents, telling her that she was 18 and no longer had to obey them, the suit said.

Now the video makes more sense to me. The lawsuit even makes more sense to me as the parents tried to tell the church something was going on and they apparently chose to protect the priest and/or their own interests over the child. The charges make more sense to me now although I'd actually like to see more charges as the girl now appears to be more taken advantage of then how the original article portrayed the situation.

Edit to add another source with more information:

On Friday, an Associated Press reporter knocked on the door of the apartment in Norristown where Bonilla now lives. A woman answered, and she identified herself as the teen named in the lawsuit filed by her parents. click to read more

[edit on 8/28/2010 by Three_moons]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:36 AM
I assume it was consentual sex, otherwise the parents would not have stood video taping while their daughter was being forcibly assaulted?

So, there is nothing illegal about it. This is not some ancient, wrinkled up old priest. lol.

Movies have been made about Priest's falling in love, and the dilemmas it creates for himself, and the woman.

How very rude of the parent's to tape this. If I were the daughter, I would be furious.

I'm sure the church will consider it an impropriety, and move on.
I don't think a "lynch mob" is called for.

@three moons:

their own interests over the child

Eighteen is no longer a child. Additionally, the age of consent varies by state. In my state it is sixteen.

I'm not defending what he did. I find it despicable when a person in authority, or who is seen as an authority figure uses that position to seduce a younger, more impressionable person.

So there's no "legal" situation, only an ethical one, and it sucks. Yep.
And how about this.....maybe she was the seductress. Even so, he should have kept his pants zipped, due to his ethical responsibility. Perhaps if he prefers the young ladies over his vows, he should consider leaving the priesthood.

[edit on 8/28/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in